Clarification about Entropia banking operations

[neomaven]

Originally Posted by BlackMagicWoman

PS: its not adviceble to make out of an oppinion, a fact. That is only your interpretation. But not ours, not mine at least... When I see a fact I will say its a fact, when I see a biased oppinion based solely on interest I will say that its a biased oppinion based solely on interest...

I agree with this wholeheartedly: do not present personal opinions as fact, especially not with the intention of misleading readers.

Originally Posted by BlackMagicWoman

The point is that he (Teilk) was the one truelly making the business run smoothly, with support cases to MA with questions and etc. That is the issue, they stole it from Teilk because he created the equation that would make everything work and it did, until MA decided to stop him.

This is your opinion and your intepretation of the timeline and development of things, not a fact. You simply have no way of knowing when MA started working on this project. It is not unreasonable to believe, considering time required to research legality, implementation, and potential effects on the EU economy, etc., that MA had this project in the works for months before announcing it to the community. If that is the case, then it is very possible that their idea predated Teilk's actual operation. Remember, his loan service was only in operation for a couple months. I know, because he consulted with me on the concept in the early stages, and solicited feedback and support from me.

In any case, it seems ridiculous to me to claim, as you have, that Teilk conceived the concept of secured loans. In fact, another avatar, Xavier Badger Reese, was operating a successful secured loan operation way back in April 2006. I supported him as well, with short-term loans of PEDs to help him provide loans. I thus saw the potential of this service 7 months before Teilk started his service, and registered the domain EntropiaLoans.com with an eye toward developing the concept fully.

Here is the WHOIS registration date for the domain:

Domain Name: ENTROPIALOANS.COM
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com
Name Server: DNS1.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS2.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS3.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS4.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS5.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 31-mar-2007
Creation Date: 25-apr-2006
Expiration Date: 25-apr-2008

[Pe-nerd]

Originally Posted by thoreau

the point was, MA didn't steal Teilk's idea. they stole (I don't like that word in this context) the idea from Darkscorp.

But it wasn't even his idea really.

Here is a link requesting an IOU system.

Here is a link discussing a deed and registration system.

Here is a link discussing a loan system.

The dates of those threads are 2003-2004.

Clearly, the idea was not originally Teilk's. As such, MA could not have stolen the idea from him.

A Pawnshop isnt a new idea inside entropia indeed. These facts aren´t new to the discussion but do have a strong point to counter the ¨They stole my idea¨ part of discussion in the way you put it down here.

What still remains is why do they take away an ongoing business or business opportunity from players and threathen to lock them if they continue? They put in a lot a work in that and they did it for the money offcourse but that freedom of development made this game unique.

Is any good running business set up by players really safe in the future? Imagine selling licenses for factory´s mass producing curtain limited guns or equip to the big wave of chinese they expecting. Some crafters will loose a big part or denied acces to a profitable area of gameplay. With most things the one lead to the other and MA gonna sell more licensed set up company´s inside the game if not for factory´s then it will be another game element. I just hope we don´t gonna loose profitable elements of this game towards the big investors and turn the players into the guys sitting behind the slot machine and some resellers sitting at a bar watching the gamblers do their thing. Maybe that is to grim picture of the future but the trend we all see will deminish the freedom of business opportunity inside the game.

Well i am a free man who can choose if he agrees with that or not, maybe it doesn´t do much but at least i gave my opinion. That´s also a freedom i really enjoy.

[BlackMagicWoman]

Originally Posted by neomaven

In any case, it seems ridiculous to me to claim, as you have, that Teilk conceived the concept of secured loans.

I am too tired to answer to the whole post but this statement (that I quoted) is too wrong.... I never said that and if you would look through my posts better, you would see that. I never said Teilk invented them inside EU...read my posts a bit better, I have even explained... Maybe you were too tired too

Btw, Neomaven how could you explain (just assuming) the coincidence of this Clarification coming into this forum right after CBE's announcement and all that followed after? and not to mention all the events.... Just curious as you seem to know a lot of things because, I assume, you must be a very intelligent person

Edit: +rep to Pe-Nerd as he explained the whole thing better than I could have.

[JackFree]

Originally Posted by BlackMagicWoman

...snip...the coincidence of this Clarification coming into this forum right after CBE's announcement and all that followed after? and not to mention all the events.... snip...[/b]

Coincidence? It sort of makes sense that MA's clarification of their policy comes after CBE's announcement. They probably did nto see it coming and had to react to developments. It makes perfect sense to me.

You have a problem with the events too? I think the events were a good idea, trying to tie them in any way to this is riduculous. It seems some people go out of their way to find conspiracy and deception where there is none.

Cheers

[BlackMagicWoman]

Originally Posted by JackFree

Coincidence? It sort of makes sense that MA's clarification of their policy comes after CBE's announcement. They probably did nto see it coming and had to react to developments. It makes perfect sense to me.

You have a problem with the events too? I think the events were a good idea, trying to tie them in any way to this is riduculous. It seems some people go out of their way to find conspiracy and deception where there is none.

Cheers

'tis okay...you are still in denial...no more prozac for you! j/k

[Joser]

Originally Posted by BlackMagicWoman

(just cause I study psychology )

Studying something does not make you an expert.

on topic: I don't like the fact that MA took one possible form of enterprise away from participants in this universe. There are, in my opinion, far too many coincidences surrounding this whole ordeal. The one that gets my goat is the fact that they were going to continue to allow CBE to operate, but flipped their decision less than a week later. I still don't get the sudden change of heart.

[JackFree]

Originally Posted by Joser

Studying something does not make you an expert.

on topic: I don't like the fact that MA took one possible form of enterprise away from participants in this universe. There are, in my opinion, far too many coincidences surrounding this whole ordeal. The one that gets my goat is the fact that they were going to continue to allow CBE to operate, but flipped their decision less than a week later. I still don't get the sudden change of heart.

I agree that the sudden change did go over well due the the way it was communicated. Am I the only one that can see that MA/Marco might have just made a mistake and then corrected their mistake when they realized the consequences of allowing something like CBE? There does not always have to be a conspiracy just because there are a few coincidences...

Cheers

[sob]

Originally Posted by JackFree

Coincidence? It sort of makes sense that MA's clarification of their policy comes after CBE's announcement. They probably did nto see it coming and had to react to developments. It makes perfect sense to me.

MA must have been aware of services like this for a long time so they had to see it coming. my guess is that they acted before they thought it all through

when did you create your first support ticket regarding your loaningservice teilk?

[demoniac]

It seems to me that it really doesn't matter who was doing it first or whether MA 'stole' the idea. They decided to take a business that players had been developing and experimenting with and re-invent it as a Bank.

When they realized that their licenses had not really added much of value they chose a rather dubious way to correct the problem. They contradicted the position they had adopted just a few days earlier and threatened the possible competition with a muddled statement that further clarifications just made worse. There was no change to the EULA, just a threat that adds confusion and would be hard to enforce in any fair or consistent manner.

It sets a bad precedent and does nothing for MA's credibility or the vision of EU as a place of opportunity for all.

[BlackHawk]

There are 100+ pages of replyes here. This is not about Teilk or Akoz or any other player. Anyone can see that.
I know EU is dinamic, but if it is to dinamic it will mess with people trust. And is not good for EU.